MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414414736 · doi:10.2196/preprints.84595

Delivering online cognitive behavioural therapy to address mental health challenges in correctional workers: A randomized controlled trial (Preprint)

2025· article· en· W4414414736 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christina Holmes, Gilmar Gutiérrez, Callum Stephenson, Elnaz Moghimi, Niloufar Malakouti, Jasleen Jagayat, C. B. Patel, Alexander Ian Frederic Simpson, Michael S. Martin, Mark Fitzpatrick, Anika Agrawal, Vineeth Jarabana, Kimia Asadpour, Ferwa Khan, Dianne Groll, Mohsen Omrani, Nazanin Alavi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthRandomized controlled trialAnxietyCognitive behavioral therapyMajor depressive disorderCognitionCognitive therapyGeneralized anxiety disorderPosttraumatic stress

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Correctional workers (CWs), are frequently exposed to traumatic workplace events, placing them at higher risk of experiencing mental health disorders, including major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Despite high prevalence of mental health challenges, CWs underutilize mental health services due to stigma, irregular work schedules, and accessibility issues. While cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is effective, it poses accessibility challenges. Electronic CBT (eCBT) offers a scalable, accessible alternative, but use among CWs remains underexplored. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of diagnosis-specific eCBT programs designed for CWs in reducing symptoms of MDD, GAD, and PTSD compared to treatment as usual (TAU). METHODS A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted with 84 CWs in Ontario, assigned to either eCBT (n=40) or TAU (n=44). The eCBT program provided diagnosis-specific modules with synchronous personalized feedback from care providers over 12-weeks via the Online Psychotherapy Tool (OPTT). Symptom severity was measured at baseline, week-6, and post-treatment using validated scales for depression, anxiety, PTSD, and quality-of-life. Data analysis included paired samples t-tests, mixed linear models, and effect size calculations (Cohen's d). RESULTS The eCBT group exhibited significant reductions in symptom severity for depression, anxiety, and PTSD from baseline to post-treatment compared to TAU (p<0.01), with a moderate effect size (Cohen’s d=0.68). Symptom severity decreased by 61.37% for eCBT versus 23.29% in TAU. Mixed linear models confirmed a significant treatment-by-time interaction, favouring eCBT (p<0.01). However, no significant differences in quality-of-life improvements were observed between groups. CONCLUSIONS Diagnosis-specific eCBT programs are effective in reducing symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD for CWs. The asynchronous, accessible format of eCBT addresses current key barriers. Future research should explore strategies to improve adherence and increase the accessibility of services for CWs. CLINICALTRIAL Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04666974). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.2196/30845

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→